18
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
18 points (95.0% liked)
Feminism
2159 readers
7 users here now
Feminism, women's rights, bodily autonomy, and other issues of this nature. Trans and sex worker inclusive.
See also this community's sister subs LGBTQ+, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC
Also check out our sister community on lemmy:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In a lot of cases it’s not a choice. I’m in a relationship and live with someone I really love. However, I’m too disabled to work. (And disability insurance is basically nothing). So financially I’m completely dependent on my spouse.
There are plenty of women I know who are in similar situations to me.
(Note that I’m male, but this applies to all genders and sexes, except I’m guessing women are more at risk of dependence due to bias in medical systems and disability insurance systems against women and majority female diseases.)
Right! That is why we need strong social protection just in case things don't work out!!
Sure, it's true that it's often not a choice (although I don't think that's who this article is talking about).
There's a lot I could say about this. I'm an accountant and see all of my clients personal / familial financial arrangements.
Very briefly, the law takes the view that any surplus wealth produced in the course of a romantic relationship belongs to both parties. Often / usually when a relationship ends both parties need to agree on how to split it up, but it's quite common to be acting on that dynamic during the relationship and ensuring that the non-working spouse is building savings / investments in the same way that the working spouse is.
In Australia this means that if one spouse is not working and one spouse is, the working spouse might contribute to the non-working spouses pension fund (401k?)